Jeep Garage  - Jeep Forum banner

3.0 Ecodiesel, EPA Lawsuit, Resale Value

27K views 54 replies 20 participants last post by  Hoooper 
#1 ·
On May 23, 2017, in Eastern District Court in Michigan, the US Attorney General filed a civil action against FCA USA, FCA N.V., V.M. Motoria (Italy), and V.M North America, for selling 103,828 diesel Jeep Grand Cherokees and Ram 1500 (years 2014-2016) that do not comply with the Clean Air Act. The suit lists the allegations and seeks four reliefs: #1 relief for Selling = civil penalty per 2014-2015 vehicle = $37,500; from Nov 5, 2015 = $45,268. #2 relief for Selling Bypass/defeat components = civil penalty per part = $3,750 or after Nov 2, 2015 = $4,527 per part. #3 relief for inoperative device = $37,500 per vehicle or after Nov 2, 2015 $45,268. #4 relief for failure to report = $37,500 per Day from Jan 1, 2009 to Nov 2, 2015 or after Nov 2 $45,268 per Day.

Apparently the resale value of my 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee 3.0 Ecodiesel 4x4 has been impacted. Similar JGCs with gasoline engines and mileage sell for $5,000 to $7,000 more on the wholesale and retail market.

I'm keeping my diesel and look forward to the settlement offer.
 
#8 ·
Personally, I'd argue that the emissions question is a performance issue. I was sold a product, in this case a diesel engine, that was advertised as efficient, powerful and clean burning. If the manufacturer mislead me on the clean part, then I want the $4,500 premium I paid returned. There is no question the 3.0 L is powerful and fuel efficient: 30mpg highway, 26mpg city, 16mpg towing a 5,400 pound trailer. If FCA's software programming "fix", which is expected soon, results in performance less than above, then the "Ecodiesel" question is more complicated.
 
#18 ·
I apologize I really intended my remark as sarcastic humor. Listen there is nothing for public consumption on this topic except sarcasm and political statements. The best place to likely find any information on resale value, buyback and the like will be CNN or the FCA website. I would give it a while though it looks like this one has not even started yet.
 
#23 ·
1. any loss is theoretical unless you are actually looking to sell
2. you guys will drive yourselves crazy guessing at the possible outcomes

i love this rig, and love the motor .... will keep a weather eye on the storm but until then i'll keep enjoying the diesel (and watching the nonsense here with the wild conspiracy theories and possible outcomes)
 
#30 ·
We buy vehicles simply for leisure transportation and never for "resale", as we usually keep them for around 10 yrs and sometimes more. We buy them firstly because we like them (and we continue to like them as we are not faddy!) and that they do the job required of them.

Our Optima for local stuff and the occasional "non-trailer" road trip, the Jeep for towing our trailer (and the occasional non-trailer road trip in weather that could be a little 'dodgy' for the Optima) and our BMW motorcycle because we like motorcycling and doing the occasional touring on it.

Not concerned in the least about our JGC ED....will just continue to drive it and enjoy it.
 
#33 · (Edited)
The resale value going down being theoretical based on whether you keep or sell your Jeep should not the argument. The reason the resale value would go down is because the product’s quality takes a hit. Whether you keep or sell your Jeep, the quality of the product you purchased is/will be lessened after this mess settles out because they will have to make changes that will affect performance or mpg to satisfy the EPA’s requirements. They will not be able to improve the emissions to meet the EPA standards without diminishing performance and/or mpg, therefore the quality of what we purchased is also diminished. So if you keep your Jeep you don’t realize the hit in resale value, but you will be driving something with diminished performance and/or mpg… that’s the argument.
 
#34 ·
Your point is spot on.

Two questions for the forum:

1) When FCA comes out with a "fix" for the emissions issue, what if I refuse to have them flash the vehicle?
2) If the software is not updated, would Oregon's DEQ testing, which happens every 2 years when the registration is renewed, reject the diesel emissions test?
 
#36 ·
Save your blood pressure and synapses - just wait for the reality. What else do you have to do?
Getting much like the bloody media with too much speculation, guesswork and, perhaps, a little fantasy involved ;).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Floridaman
#38 ·
I tend to agree with the original OP. it seems these vehicles where purchased at a PREMIUM and advertise to perform in a particular way and that actions taken directly by the manufacturer has caused the performance to be less then what was advertised. This conceivably could have affect on resale value. Then there is the other side. FCA already admitted to breaking the rules and not reporting additions of software as they are required. Wether it is intentional or not. It seems to me this is not going away. I know it has not so far and from what I read it continues to progress in a less then positive way for FCA.
 
#41 ·
I agree with this. For me, the EPA's argument/emissions spewing out the back above some arbitrary level is only part of the issue (and one that I think most of us agree doesn't probably matter much in the grand scheme of things). Personally, the fact that the EPA doesn't like how much emissions is coming out the back makes me want to drive it even more!

What does matter is that we were sold a bill of goods by FCA on this engine regarding its MPG, performance, power, etc. which we all paid a $4500 premium for. If the engine with this new reported software FCA has can't perform at that same level of MPG and performance while meeting the emissions requirements that the EPA has set, then FCA has committed false advertising and we are owed something. This is probably why the Securities & Exchange Commission is also looking into this matter. I wouldn't be surprised if the Federal Trade Commission or other similar consumer protection agencies get involved either if they haven't already (just like what happened with VW).

So this really breaks into two parts: 1) What will the EPA demand to have happen as a result of whatever emissions violations they can get to stick with a federal judge in CA; and 2) What will happen if a judge agrees that we were mislead by FCA's marketing division as to the capabilities of this engine.

I seriously, seriously doubt that FCA can get out of both of those issues without some sort of "We're sorry" compensation coming our way, government mandated or otherwise. Will it result in a complete buyback? Who knows. We will have to wait and see. But I can't see not getting a check for some amount as a result of this fiasco. Question then becomes can cash strapped FCA afford to send them out without them bouncing...
 
#42 ·
The funniest part about all this "discussion" is that back when it was vw in the spotlight and the Obama administration, everyone here prayed for Trump and the downsizing of the EPA. Now that there's a microcosm of a chance that people here might be able to make a quick buck, everyone is clamoring. Lmao ?! Folks got what they wished for. If you think the trump administration is going to risk the jobs and everything else to pay out an incredibly small margin of FCA vehicle owners, well I've got some bad news.


Sent from my iPhone using JeepGarage
 
#44 ·
Whether FCA is innocent or guilty will be determined in court not this forum. I have yet to see any credible evidence that shows the cycles and emissions and I think that is the key to the whole EPA complaint and those with class action law suits.
This will in all likelihood be negotiated out of court with FCA admitting guilt whether they are or not to just be rid of the whole thing and they will pay the gov't some fine and most likely the class action law suits some amount as well. I am interested in what is going on with the GM/ EPA action regarding the diesel complaint EPA filed against them and from what I am remembering GM telling EPA to go pound sand they are in compliance (sounds just like FCA in the beginning).
There is no doubt that FCA will be found guilty since the case was moved to CA from MI.

Stand by for more serious drama.
Last point is that CARB and EPA are dragging their feet either approving or denying the 17 model compliance. No doubt this is punishment for fighting the gov't which is very typical of the federal gov't...
 
#48 ·
If they are now producing more 2017 JGC diesels, that means the emissions software must have been given the ok. Has anyone seen a technical bulletin on new flash updates for existing 3.0L diesels? BTW, my Oregon service manager claims to know nothing about the notice of violation issued to FCA, nor the suit. Maybe they just don't have enough Jeep diesels for service that they know, or care.
 
#49 · (Edited)
Only CRD Ram trucks have been reported as rolling off the lines in limited numbers, no JGCs. There is no word on any approvals for 2017 or 2018 CRD models.

As for the dealership, sounds like a smokescreen. Do they order or sell any diesels? They didn't notice that they have not been able to stock diesels? I call B$ in their comment.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top